How many judgments cite CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation?

1,158 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 2(24)(x), Section 250, Section 36(1)(va), Section 1961.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

366 ITR 170High Court2014#38 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation authority for?

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

1,158

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation · 366 ITR 170 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 2(24)(x) · employees contribution to provident fund · delayed deposit of PF · disallowance of employee contribution · due date for deposit · welfare fund contributions · EPF Act due date · Checkmate Services

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250 Section 36(1)(va)Section 1961 Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pf section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)section 43b section 43 section 36 section 36(1)section 139(1)section 139 section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Bi Worldwide India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.R Krishna, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, Page 4 of 7 the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant…

Sugandh, Moradabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, Vs Itd, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, Cpc, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. Pan-Aaefs7109J Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s support from various other High Courts judgements such as Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244/[2019] 260 Taxman 60/[2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad.), CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.), 8.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 457/[2008] 171 Taxman 304 (MP), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker). 4.7 Despite section 43B of the Act covers only employer's contribution and do…

M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 504/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels P. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 18, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Gandhinagar, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcv4731B Appellant Respondent Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By : Advocate & Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca : Shri Raghavendra Rao, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Bengaluru Karnataka Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Advocate & Ms. Sunaina

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

Tml Business Serices Ltd. (Earlier Known As Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy (Jm) & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Am)

Section 143Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e. The appellate order under section 250 of the Act was passed on 16/03/2019 exparte wherein the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 (Guj). Accordingly, the disallowance made by the CPC was confirmed. 3 ITA 6978/Mum/2021 05 Assessee is aggrieved by the above order for the reason that it is passed exparte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee as well as in disregard to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Bombay High Court in case of Ghatge Patil T…

Kuduma Labour Contract, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Kuduma Labour Contract, Vs. Ito, No.69/1, 35Th Main, 7Th Cross, Ward – 4(3)(2), Btm Layout 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Aajfk 5289 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajashekar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 23.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,71,810/-. In An Intimation Dated 22.02.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.14,77,428/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Rajashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement Page 4 of 6 wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

M/S. Anubis Detective & Guarding Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2) Through the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Anubis Detective & Guarding Vs. Ito, Services Private Limited, Ward – 1(1)(2) Through No.37, 1St Floor, 9Th B Cross, Dcit, Wilson Garden, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 027. Bengaluru. Pan : Aafca 4501 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,53,696/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 12,50,435/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Vs. 1. Dcit, #4A, Kiadb Industrial Area, Circle – 4(1)(2), Hosakote Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 114. Pan : Aabcm 8680 N 2. Cpc, Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.11.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. In An Intimation Dated 29.06.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 46,87,690/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

B R S Precision Manufacturing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. B. R. S. Precision Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Private Limited, Central Processing Centre, No.19, 5Th Floor, Shivashankar Plaza, Bengaluru. Richmond Circle, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaecb 5550 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 23.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 11,81,345/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mr. Rais Arif Meman, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 589/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 588/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Bizviz Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sharwan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Capt.Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Volantis Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Volantis Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 940, 2Nd Floor, 16Th Main, Btm 2Nd Stage, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 076. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 1855 F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 02.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,25,384/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.06.2021 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.9,11,370/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Decision Of Supreme Court In Cit Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 Itr Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Page 4 of 6 Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR (Ker), CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels 410 ITR 417 (Delhi). 6. The CIT(A), thereafter held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by insertion of explanation 2 and the amendment to section 43B by insertion to explanation 5 by the Finance Bill…

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 586/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 585/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Kuduva Satishbabu Sheela, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…babu Sheela. to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Gowrishankar Chemicals Private Limited, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 570/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

M/S National Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 47/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…u/s. 36(1)(va), even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the National Hospital v. Dy. CIT relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judic…